Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution [Paperback]

Woody Holton (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0809016435 | ISBN-13: 978-0809016433 | Publication Date: October 14, 2008 | Edition: 1st

Average Americans Were the True Framers of the Constitution

Woody Holton upends what we think we know of the Constitution’s origins by telling the history of the average Americans who challenged the framers of the Constitution and forced on them the revisions that produced the document we now venerate.  The framers who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 were determined to reverse America’s post–Revolutionary War slide into democracy. They believed too many middling Americans exercised too much influence over state and national policies. That the framers were only partially successful in curtailing citizen rights is due to the reaction, sometimes violent, of unruly average Americans. 
 
If not to protect civil liberties and the freedom of the people, what motivated the framers? In Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, Holton provides the startling discovery that the primary purpose of the Constitution was, simply put, to make America more attractive to investment. And the linchpin to that endeavor was taking power away from the states and ultimately away from the people. In an eye-opening interpretation of the Constitution, Holton captures how the same class of Americans that produced Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts (and rebellions in damn near every other state) produced the Constitution we now revere.

 

Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution is a 2007 National Book Award Finalist for Nonfiction.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. Is the Constitution a democratic document? Yes, says University of Richmond historian Holton (Forced Founders), but not because the men who wrote it were especially democratically inclined. The framers, Holton says, distrusted the middling farmers who made up much of America's voting population, and believed governance should be left in large part to the elites. But the framers also knew that if the document they drafted did not address ordinary citizens' concerns, the states would not ratify it. Thus, the framers created a more radical document—an underdogs' Constitution, Holton calls it—than they otherwise would have done. Holton's book, which may be the most suggestive study of the politics of the Constitution and the early republic since Drew McCoy's 1980 The Elusive Republic, is full of surprising insights; for example, his discussion of newspaper writers' defense of a woman's right to purchase the occasional luxury item flies in the face of much scholarship on virtue, gender and fashion in postrevolutionary America. Holton concludes with an inspiring rallying cry for democracy, saying that Americans today seem to have abandoned ordinary late-18th-century citizens' intens[e]... democratic aspiration, resigned, he says, to the power of global corporations and of wealth in American politics. (Oct.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist

The motivation of the framers of our constitution is a constant and often hotly debated topic among historians. At one extreme are those who see the framers as brilliant, democratic politicians who did a masterful job of juggling competing interests while remaining true to the ideal of personal liberty. At the other extreme are the economic determinists who view the founders as members of the privileged classes, insistent upon protecting their interests from the encroachments of the masses. Holton certainly would be most comfortable in the latter camp, but his arguments here are free of dogmatism, and he offers some interesting twists on old assertions. He maintains that the delegates to the convention were attempting to limit the democratic tendencies of the individual state legislatures by curbing their powers to issue paper money and offer relief to debtors. Faced with vehement popular opposition to ratification, the Bill of Rights, Holton claims, was promised only to tip the balance in favor of ratification. Although he makes a credible case that some delegates feared the dangers of democracy, he glosses over the commitment many showed to protecting personal freedom as their top priority. Freeman, Jay --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 384 pages
• Publisher: Hill and Wang; 1st edition (October 14, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0809016435
• ISBN-13: 978-0809016433
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #46,377 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #44 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Government     > Constitutions

More About the Author

Woody Holton (Ph.D., Duke University) is an associate professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, where he teaches classes on African Americans, Native America, early American women, the origins of the Constitution, Abigail Adams, and the era of the American Revolution. He is especially interested in studying the impact of ordinary citizens on grand political events. He is the author of Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (1999), which won the Organization of American Historians Merle Curti Social History Award, and Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (2007), which was a finalist for the National Book Award.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Not the story you're told in school, November 21, 2007

By 

Jonathon R. Howard (Davis, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (Hardcover)

A fascinating and revealing look at the creation of the United States constitution. Holton explores how much of the important events and causes of the convention that created our constitution are ignored in historical accounts. This book is an attempt to rectify that in some measure. Holton describes in detail what he believes the primary reason behind the framer's intent, the economic failure of the Confederation and the democracy of the States. The constitution was written to make the country less democratic and remove from the people the ability to get out of debt (through the courts or printing money) In doing so it created a elitist government that had to appear non-elitist. Holton says that in the end, the underdogs, the farmers, won because our nation isn't as elitist as it could have been. I tend to disagree with his conclusions... Still an excellent read that showed me a part of history I was unaware of.

A great read for the liberty minded!

21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Fine Revisionist Perspective on the Adoption of the Constitution, Especially Helpful in Coming to Grips with Personal Liberty, January 27, 2008

By 

Roger D. Launius "Historian" (Washington, D.C., United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (Hardcover)

The nature of the Constitution, as well as the intention of its framers, has long been debated by historians. "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution" offers an interesting and instructive new perspective on this debate by suggesting that what emerged from the Constitutional convention and its ratification was especially democratic not so much because of the majority of the efforts of the framers themselves--although they did believe in basic democratic principles--but because of opponents to the Constitution who worked hard for concessions and protections that have been critical to the effective functioning of the nation since that time.

In essence, author Woody Holton, professor of history at the University of Richmond, asserts that critical cadre of such advocates was a part of the convention in Philadelphia drafting the Constitution but even more emerged in the various states during the ratification debates. The author makes a compelling case for the success of these individuals in juggling a variety of competing interests while constructing a bulwark that would preserve personal liberty. It was these "unruly Americans," in the author's phraseology, which ensured individual rights. He analyzes and celebrates the actions of these people to rise up and take action when those in powerful positions would seek to curtail liberty.

This book, of course, is very much a work of its time and place. The author's juxtaposition of political perspectives and their conflict over a cornerstone of democratic principles--individual rights and liberty--offers an analogy for our own day and the efforts to curtail civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11.

18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Friendlier Version of Charles Beard's and Howard Zinn's rendition, May 31, 2008

By 

Herbert L Calhoun "paulocal" (Falls Church, VA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (Hardcover)

This history, told mostly from the vantage point of the average colonial American, rather than from the traditional vantage point of the landed gentry, has a lot to offer in untwisting the mythology of how our Constitution came about.

It is basically a story about the chaos that ensued when all the contending forces -- from the grassroots upwards are thrown into the mix; and all side's views and interests are taken into account. What ensued in 1787 was not a pretty picture. That the author was able to capture this unruliness is a tribute to his skill, and in the end is a much fuller, much more honest and thus a more believable history than the sugarcoated version we have come to accept and revere as the true national story.

Woody Holton is not the first, the only, nor will he be the last historian to note that our founding fathers were an aristocratic and very much anti-democratic bunch, who were as careful and skillful at protecting their own economic interests as they were concerned about shaping a "people's democracy" through the details of the Constitution. And while this book does not go so far as to suggest that the overlapping interests of the landed gentry amounted to a silent reactionary conspiracy, as Charles Beard does in his "An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution," or as Howard Zinn leaves hanging in the air in his "A People's History of the United States," it does leave plenty of room for the careful reader to draw his own speculative conclusions.

The crux of the matter (and of the book) is that due to the rebellious attitudes and actions of the average colonial citizen, the framers (representing the interests mostly of the landed gentry) were worried about the post-revolutionary slide into "a real people's democracy." Without the heavy-handed intervention of the framers, the average colonial Joe-blow would have exercised an even greater influence over state and national policies than that granted them by the compromises that eventually ended in the Constitution that we now have. Whether the alternative would have been better than what we have, is arguable.

Correctly, Holton makes these average colonial citizens, the real "unsung heroes" of the Constitution, as it was their tenacity and forbearance, their refusal to be dictated to and looked down upon, their agitation in the streets as often as necessary to defend what they viewed as their inherent rights and interests that led to the Constitution we now have. Shay's rebellion is just the most "written about" of the many rebellions that took place during those very hectic times.

As one would expect, most of the debate, and the subtext of the competing interests, were shrouded in economic complexity, arcania and details of that era. For it is at this level that the democracy we have come to enjoy really gets played out. Altogether, Horton's rendition makes us better understand why we are still caught up in the same time warp, with the moneyed interests still exercising undue influence over national policy. Pulling this off without leaving the reader with the feeling that he had an axe to grind was no mean trick, and makes for very interesting reading to boot. Five Stars